tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9560953.post6331432408961755880..comments2023-12-31T19:34:14.853-05:00Comments on Dymaxion World: Elegance in utilitiesjohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09690430991814528863noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9560953.post-79365385782042337012009-03-26T08:43:00.000-04:002009-03-26T08:43:00.000-04:00Something to think about: Whereas cheap electrical...<I>Something to think about: Whereas cheap electrical storage is perceived as the 'killer app' for renewables, it would be just as much a killer app for nuclear generation.</I><BR/><BR/>I absolutely agree, and have written so in this space before. The question, in terms of costs, is whether the new, excess wind (for example) would be more expensive than new nuclear. Given the rapid inflation in nuclear costs around the world, I'm deeply skeptical. If you have to build 4 or 5 MW for every 1 MW of nuclear, you might still end up on the plus side of the ledger. Ontario in particular doesn't have a sterling history on cost containment.johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09690430991814528863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9560953.post-13901683865583525062009-03-26T03:30:00.000-04:002009-03-26T03:30:00.000-04:00Ah yes, the it's-always-windy-somewhere argument. ...Ah yes, the it's-always-windy-somewhere argument. Really, what you end up doing is building excess generation and transmission capacity to avoid building expensive storage. High costs either way.<BR/><BR/>Something to think about: Whereas cheap electrical storage is perceived as the 'killer app' for renewables, it would be just as much a killer app for nuclear generation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9560953.post-16606376162068045302009-03-26T00:29:00.000-04:002009-03-26T00:29:00.000-04:00It's easy to wave your hands and say "problem solv...<I>It's easy to wave your hands and say "problem solved, let's get on with it", but the reality is that ratepayers have to be willing to pay the cost.</I><BR/><BR/>Obviously. When I wrote that as a headline, it's with the presumption that people will understand it's grossly simplified, as headlines tend to be.<BR/><BR/>I think you're overly pessimistic on the needs for storage... multi-week is almost certainly unnecessary. See, for example, <A HREF="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/212637/60" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>That said, I agree with the problems of the cost, but if you read some of the other posts in the blog you'll see that a) I'm convinced that having wasted decades, we now have to pay for speed, and b) many of the costs of mitigation will be lower than we think (doesn't immediately apply to this example, though.)johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09690430991814528863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9560953.post-18790212130216026962009-03-25T18:58:00.000-04:002009-03-25T18:58:00.000-04:00Grr. As somewhat of a pseudo-environmentalist (I ...Grr. As somewhat of a pseudo-environmentalist (I think of myself as green-tinged, although I have no accredited environmental training) I think people need to understand the costs of building wind and solar. <BR/><BR/>You point to Riverbank Power as an elegant solution. I agree - to a point. It is elegant but it is not without cost. If it can indeed be built for $2B, then the financing cost alone requires a spread of about 13 cents between purchase and sale price of energy. That's not bad (which makes me suspect their estimates may be low), but they'll need to see at least that spread every single day and then some to pay operating expenses. Energy cost will be 25-30 cents per kWh if the source energy is wind at 13 cents. When you factor in downtime for maintenance, cleaning up rock falls in the cavern, silt removal, costs go up. Still, it's not a bad deal for peaking power if the capital costs can be managed.<BR/><BR/>The thing to keep in mind is that this type of storage will not provide multi-day storage for the same cost. The business driver for Riverbank is to buy low, sell high, EVERY DAY to recover the plant's capital cost as quickly as possible. If the 'green' thing to do is maybe wait a couple of days for the wind to come up in order to pump out the reservoir, then the capital cost will be spread over fewer charge/discharge cycles and the cost of the stored energy will rise proportionately.<BR/><BR/>If enough storage capacity is built to carry through periods of combined low winds and overcast, then the cost will rise. And multi-day (possible multi-week or longer) is the kind of storage that is required to move to a wholly renewable energy system.<BR/><BR/>It's easy to wave your hands and say "problem solved, let's get on with it", but the reality is that ratepayers have to be willing to pay the cost.<BR/>Moving to renewables does not just require "building some transmission" (another fixed cost that would have to be paid for) and having "half-competent managers", it requires that the system be affordable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com